What is the end point of the pro-life movement?

[truethat]

I abstained for a year once because I couldn't afford birth control and don't really trust condoms. If you don't have reasonable insurance the stuff does cost money. I've probably spent around 4k on birth control so far. It's not an astounding amount of money but it's hardly peanuts to someone on a tight budget.

I'm 100 billion percent pro-choice though. I'm extra careful because I'm straight up terrified of ever getting pregnant. I pretty much demand the ability to live my life as a sexual being without ever, should something go wrong, being forced to bear a child. And I feel very strongly that no woman should ever be forced to bear a child. I don't particularly approve of the few women that use abortion as birth control, but in no way do they change my mind about how absolutely imperative it is that all women should have reasonable access to abortion. In fact my strongest objection to such women is that they give ammunition to the pro-life crowd and influence fence sitters that aren't as thoroughly unimpressed with embryos as I am.

I don't find Truethat's position realistic because it implies that someone like me should essentially never, ever have vaginal intercourse. Well, balls to that.


Not really. If you are willing to have an abortion then of course. What I object to is the presentation of women who have an abortion as somehow being victims and forced into having an abortion.

Studies don't show this is true. They show that half the women having abortions were not using any birth control at the time.

Once again, abortion should be safe legal and RARE. I believe for me personally that abortion is murder. To me I would feel as though I were murdering my own child. So I don't want to have an abortion. I don't expect other people to feel that way. I understand people don't.

You sound like you are responsible and doing exactly the right thing. And you haven't gotten pregnant.

Plenty of women are practicing safer sex and being mindful of birth control and pregnancy. Many women are not paying any attention to it at all, not really considering the implications, giving in to impulse when they want to have sex or even just getting drunk and sleeping around.

Funny, because it is considered rape for a guy to have sex with a drunk woman. Yet women put themselves into this position very often. I'm not rejecting the claim of rape btw before everyone piles on about that, but just that most women don't seem to understand that if a guy has sex with a girl who is drunk, by law he is a rapist. Whether she presses charges is irrelevant.

When the discussion about pro life vs pro choice comes up what bugs me is the promotion of the idea that women are pretty helpless when it comes to having sex. That they can't be intelligent and proactive.

This is not true. But continuing to discuss all the ways that women "can't help getting pregnant" and ignoring the ways they can, we do a terrible injustice to women everywhere, especially young women.

Congratulations on being an autonomous female.

[Moss]

What I object to is the presentation of women who have an abortion as somehow being victims and forced into having an abortion.



Who is presenting this point of view?

[sgtbaker]

Oh I don't think you are understanding what I meant. But I'll take the blame for that. Most people seem to think I was suggesting the rhythm method in a way that is the opposite of what I suggested.

IOW having sex when you are least likely to get pregnant with no birth control.

I was suggesting NOT having sex at all during the time period of you knowing you are really likely to get pregnant.


Gotcha, but it still doesn't answer for why knowing your cycle matters when you are abstaining because you can't afford condoms.

There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and being broke.

There shouldn't be. If you can't afford condoms, you certainly can't afford a baby.

As I said, you are mixing up two different times. The two year time period was using birth control and abstinence and also not minding if I got pregnant.

Wait, the opening to that example was, "how did I manage to not get pregnant..." as an example of how dedicated you were to pregnancy prevention.

I still practiced birth control, I still use birth control even now after being together for 11 years. My worry now about getting pregnant has more to do with the health of the child and not being able to carry the child to term.


However I would not have had an abortion nor would the child have been unwanted if I would have gotten pregnant during the time period that we were broke. It would have been rough but I would have been able to handle it.

If I didn't think so I would have abstained even more than I did at the time.

To each their own.

Now that I have answered your ridiculously personal questions, could you please show me who exactly you are talking about who can't afford free birth control?

Abstinance is another form birth control the way sleeping is another form of aerobics.

[Lithrael]

Not really. If you are willing to have an abortion then of course.

Ah OK. But in that case I don't understand your position. It's grudgingly permissable then, but only if the woman is being double-triple careful at all times? It's only when she's just let the little brain do the thinking, gambled and lost that it's really unforgivable? And the middle ground, where she's only using a condom every time, and it breaks, that's just.. moderately unforgivable?

What I object to is the presentation of women who have an abortion as somehow being victims and forced into having an abortion.

I have not seen this presentation myself. Except occasionally from pro-lifers, and then in a literal sense. "My boyfriend forced me to have an abortion" etc.

Plenty of women are practicing safer sex and being mindful of birth control and pregnancy. Many women are not paying any attention to it at all, not really considering the implications, giving in to impulse when they want to have sex or even just getting drunk and sleeping around.

This is true. But any abortions they end up wanting are the least of my worries as far as their behaviour. I can't see myself crusading to try to make the human race more responsible in general, though. "Hey everybody! Stop partying so much and get real jobs! Are you even trying to save for retirement?"

I can understand feeling strongly about it if you think of abortion as murder. But I can't understand thinking of abortion as murder until it's practically a full-on baby, and I think we've already established that very nearly nobody is doing that casually anyway. And I very much support late term abortions being available to women who find out they are carrying a malformed fetus, etc. I personally support the option of euthanasia for the worst case scenarios even after delivery, though usually at that point everyone has bonded with the poor thing and will try their best anyway. Don't get me wrong, I think people like Juliana Wetmore's parents are freaking heroes, but I wouldn't for an instant think poorly of anyone who would have chosen to give up on her instead.

When the discussion about pro life vs pro choice comes up what bugs me is the promotion of the idea that women are pretty helpless when it comes to having sex. That they can't be intelligent and proactive.

I honestly don't see anyone else who thinks anybody is saying that. Do you think that saying something like 'sex is a strong drive and a lot of people are going to up and have it even when they know they are risking a pregnancy they don't want' is the same thing as saying 'women are helpless when it comes to sex'?

Congratulations on being an autonomous female.

Thanks. But I didn't get to be this way in a vacuum. I've been surrounded by thoughtful, intelligent, knowledgeable, responsible people my whole life. I wasn't left to maybe pick it up from the occasional teacher or friend's no-nonsense mom or sitcom TV show like a lot of girls are.

By the way, this:
See how someone tried to suggest that "some of the women wanted the baby and had to have an abortion" it's always this new excuse to ignore the reality
wasn't an excuse. It was correctly pointing out that those statistics don't include this information. Even assuming the number of elective abortions for health reasons are low, they're still not differentiated from the number of elective abortions because of simply not wanting to be pregnant, in those statistics. It looked like it was brought up because you were speaking as though all of the women in that data group who had become pregnant without using any form of birth control were being irresponsible. I don't think it was meant as a rebuttal to the statistic in general, but a reminder that not everyone who gets an abortion after unprotected sex is necessarily behaving the way you assume.

I figure you already knew that and were just being a little bit hyperbolic and figured the numbers don't make a dent in your conclusion anyway so why bring it up - I know it always bugs me when someone 'points out' something I already knew as though I had no idea. But it's not an invalid point.

[catsmate1]

Personally, I would not be that ok with it. It does bother me. But it is hard for me to make a legal case against it. For me, somewhere around that time, the living being feels it when it gets ripped apart. That's a deal breaker for me. They move around at that time (somewhere around that time) and though I don't know, I suspect they could and would move from pain. If you were to place something sharp against them, I am almost certain they would DECIDE to move away from it. That is what they would choose. Which is why I really deplore the term anti choice.
So if a woman expressed an intention to abort a (say) 30 week old fetus what would you do about it?


Restrict her access to legal abortion and force her to travel elsewhere.
Imprison her until after the birth.

If your regime was in force would pregnancy checks be made on women travelling to less restrictive locations? Would pregnant women be allowed to travel at all?

[catsmate1]

Who is presenting this point of view?
Truethat has made various (unsupported) assertions that womens health providers, such as Planned Parenthood, fail to consider or advocate options other than abortion.

[sgtbaker]

Ok I'm a liar. It seems like people want to make this discussion about 'judging woman" who get pregnant. I'm not.

I'm pointing out that we need to change the approach to throwing 100 percent responsibility on the shoulders of women to always use birth control and ways they can push their advantage of not getting pregnant. So using short term abstinence as well.

I have also stated many times that abortion should be legal and rare. I've also pointed out that I would not judge a woman who had an abortion.

What do you call, calling people irresponsible, if not a judgement? Just because you agree with your jugdement, it doesn't mean it's not a judgement.

What I am pointing out is that women who promote the idea that "people are going to have careless sex" and "it's hard for a woman to take responsibility" and "rape victims are the ones having abortions" and "you have to understand that some women are just lucky" etc etc etc.

You added that part that I highlighted. When you have to make up things that other people didn't say in order to make your argument it's called a strawman. No, actually rape victims make up less than 1% of abortions, but I never said otherwise. All I ever said about luck was that not all women were lucky enough to marry responsible men (you said that you were lucky enough to marry two responsible men). This kind of indicates that marrying those two responsible me helped you in some way. Some women just don't get that kind of help and have to do it all on their own.

You are promoting a lie. Yes these might be overall statistics. But there is no reason a woman cannot practice safer sex and using birth control. By promoting these other ideas you perpetuate that a woman is a victim and has no power over the choices she makes with her body. Oh wait except if she wants to have an abortion. Then it's "her body her right."

You are promoting another strawman, I have never said word one about anyone being a victim. I said people are going to have sex regardless of how responsible you think it is. I support their right to correct mistakes. That's not a victim.

I edited the last post to address the personal questions btw. Also I never said I was the prime example of responsibility. This is what I mean about the emotion vs logic thread. I haven't said anything of the sort. I've repeated myself over and over again because people read what I wrote and then go on and add crap in there I never said. Even when I clarify it over and over and over again.

If you are going to continue saying, "women ought to do this, see, I did it..." I am going to continue to accuse you of using yourself as the example. If you don't think you are the example then stop using your personal choices as proof of success. Did you want to argue logic or untestable anecdotes. Now about what I highlighted... seriously, you've been doing it this whole discussion.

[myowninvention]

It's partly a matter of principal. To me and to almost anyone really a nine month old fetus is human and Canada is very cowardly IMO to not define it as such.
Read the link- it is essentially impossible for a woman in Canada to get a late term abortion without medical necessity- in fact, women who want a late term abortion wind up going to the US.
However, in the case of medical necessity neither the doctor, nor the woman need fear prosecution.
I understand the emotional reaction to the concept of a late term abortion-I have, and love, children myself, and I have felt the tie, and responsibility, to an unborn child. At the end of the day, though, I am a pragmatist, and when a law that is set down "as a matter of principal" winds up doing more damage then it does good, or simply not functioning, I think that my personal feelings need to be set aside.



http://news.yahoo.com/pa-vending-machine-dispenses-morning-pill-182838406.html



More of these please. myowninvention. I totally disagree with your assertion that it is society's job to help women not to get pregnant. I think this meme is why we have so much unwanted pregnancy. It's the personal responsibility of a woman to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. No one else's. Her body, her right right? Then suddenly it's everyone else's responsibility? That's pretty much what I pointed out ten pages ago.


This was a great measure taken. But don't you see, this is exactly what I have been fighting for. Why do you think these vending machines got set up? Someone looked at a demographic, saw that there were women not practicing safe sex, and asked why. They didn't simply say, as you seem to be saying "these women are irresponsible, we need to teach them to be responsible". They realized that, in this particular instance, these women were not using plan B because they were embarrassed, or found it inconvenient. Again, they didn't call this an excuse, and stop there. They looked at a real world, practical way to fix this problem. The women were not blamed, called stupid, or irresponsible for not using birth control.


Ok I'm a liar. It seems like people want to make this discussion about 'judging woman" who get pregnant. I'm not.

I'm pointing out that we need to change the approach to throwing 100 percent responsibility on the shoulders of women to always use birth control and ways they can push their advantage of not getting pregnant. So using short term abstinence as well.

I have also stated many times that abortion should be legal and rare. I've also pointed out that I would not judge a woman who had an abortion.

What I am pointing out is that women who promote the idea that "people are going to have careless sex" and "it's hard for a woman to take responsibility" and "rape victims are the ones having abortions" and "you have to understand that some women are just lucky" etc etc etc.


You are promoting a lie. Yes these might be overall statistics. But there is no reason a woman cannot practice safer sex and using birth control. By promoting these other ideas you perpetuate that a woman is a victim and has no power over the choices she makes with her body. Oh wait except if she wants to have an abortion. Then it's "her body her right."



I am promoting a world which runs in shades of grey- where nothing is absolute. I feel that you are arguing in absolutes, and then being surprised when you are countered with exceptions.

I want women to take responsibility for their bodies as well. I also, however, want all women to have the same ability to take that responsibility. Let's look at a hypothetical comparison for a moment. Woman A and woman B both go pregnant. Both are over 25 and professionals. Neither were using birth control of any kind at the time of conception, neither want the child.

Woman A is well educated, particularly,she has had sex education not just from her high school, but from her university, her family, and her doctor and therefore has full knowledge of the forms of birth control, her own cycle, etc. She has medical insurance, a family doctor, and enough money to afford whatever type of birth control she should want. She chooses to have sex, does not to use any birth control, and becomes pregnant.

Woman B has a high school education, complete with your standard few hours of sex ed. Other then that, her education has consisted largely of 'abstinence only' from her community. She does not have a family doctor, and does not have insurance to cover one, so has not been presented with many options, nor has she had the opportunity to discuss them with a medical professional, nor does her area have a free clinic where birth control is available, or even information regarding birth control. She is well below the poverty line, and does not have spare cash- when deciding whether to buy condoms or pay her phone bill, she pays her phone bill. She chooses to have sex, does not use any birth control, and becomes pregnant.

Now, both of these women made the same choice in choosing to have sex, and yes, I realize that it is a choice then did not have to make. However, arguing that both women bear the exact same level of responsibility is just pointless. One woman has not only chosen to have sex, she has chosen to ignore an not accept all the means available to her. The other woman has does not have these means.

When all women making the choice to have sex without birth control are in woman A's situation, perhaps we can say it comes down, 100%, to the woman taking responsibility. However, while such a large number of women are in situation of woman B, I see far more good coming of helping them improve their situation first, then simply condemning them.

[bookitty]

I hope to gain rights for the unborn. I don't believe abortion should legal after 6 months and maybe not 5.

I only wish people like yourself could view a 7 month old fetus as such high esteem as "those animals".

Well, in 36 states you got your wish. And, as I may have mentioned, it primarily affected women with non-viable pregnancies increasing the cost, physical risk and psychological damage of an already heartbreaking situation.

I wish people like you could value those women more than your own skewed perception.

[bookitty]

What circumstances makes it harder for a woman not to have sex if she doesn't want an unwanted pregnancy???

As I said, you guys make it sound like we're talking about breathing here. It's sex. It's not absolutely necessary to have vaginal intercourse? This is what I mean about the "meme" that is being promoted that women are "victims"

Victims of what? Wanting to have sex? I got "lucky" and it's harder for other women to "not have sex." I didn't have sex for a year. It's not a very difficult thing to do believe it or not.

But no, women are just these poor things who will collapse into unwanted sex. Then you all have the nerve to compare this to rape victims?


It's utter nonsense. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. The only excuse for women is that they would be too naive or stupid to realize they shouldn't have sex. Like a teenaged girl.

And yet teenagers are a low percentage of abortions.

You keep going on about the victim meme. It's time to back that up with evidence, not opinion.

[Mark6]

So you're OK with induced abortion before 20-24 weeks? Why?
My definition of "human" is the mind, the experiences, the memories -- the software, if you will. Anything else is, to put it bluntly, meat.

An appendix is not human. An anencephalic is not human. A brain-dead is not human. And a fetus before its brain has formed is not a human either. It is mindless meat.

Thus abortion is acceptable to me before fetus has any consciousness or awareness. After that, I consider it wrong.
One thing our policy here in Canada does is remove the incentive of certain extremists to delay a woman seeking an early elective abortion until it is to late.
I consider such tactics on anti-abortionists' part pure evil.

[myowninvention]

I consider such tactics on anti-abortionists' part pure evil.

I could not agree more. Try working in a women's crisis center in a state where abortion after 12 weeks becomes steadily more and more difficult. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/state-profiles/south-carolina.html?templateName=template-161602701&issueID=10&ssumID=2824


Have I mentioned that I'm glad I moved to Canada?

[myowninvention]

Double post

[truethat]

Well, in 36 states you got your wish. And, as I may have mentioned, it primarily affected women with non-viable pregnancies increasing the cost, physical risk and psychological damage of an already heartbreaking situation.

I wish people like you could value those women more than your own skewed perception.


Like this bookitty. You just love posting things about rape victims and tragic cases etc. You also make statements and do not back them up with statistics at all.

[Caper]

So if a woman expressed an intention to abort a (say) 30 week old fetus what would you do about it?


Restrict her access to legal abortion and force her to travel elsewhere.
Imprison her until after the birth.

If your regime was in force would pregnancy checks be made on women travelling to less restrictive locations? Would pregnant women be allowed to travel at all?

1) if she wanted to abort a 30 week old fetus that she didn't want? Without getting into exceptions, no it wouldn't be legal. No prison. No pregnancy checks.

[Caper]

Well, in 36 states you got your wish. And, as I may have mentioned, it primarily affected women with non-viable pregnancies increasing the cost, physical risk and psychological damage of an already heartbreaking situation.

I wish people like you could value those women more than your own skewed perception.

What's my skewed perception. Think about your answer before you make stuff up.

[AvalonXQ]

My definition of "human" is the mind, the experiences, the memories -- the software, if you will. Anything else is, to put it bluntly, meat.

An appendix is not human. An anencephalic is not human. A brain-dead is not human. And a fetus before its brain has formed is not a human either. It is mindless meat.

Thus abortion is acceptable to me before fetus has any consciousness or awareness. After that, I consider it wrong.

I'm leaning toward that position myself.

[myowninvention]

I'm leaning toward that position myself.

You might appreciate this: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/im_pro_life_and_i_support_planned_parenthood/singleton/?mobile.html

An ideological war on abortion that ignores the data and sets its sights on low-income women who lack proper education and resources must stop. The Pro-Life movement must make reducing the rate of abortion the goal, and seek rational methods and solutions that will serve this purpose.
If the only thing that matters is righteous ideology without concern for results, then we want the term “pro-life” back. You’re using it wrong.



If this was the voice of the pro-life movement, I think we could make much more progress.

[catsmate1]

1) if she wanted to abort a 30 week old fetus that she didn't want? Without getting into exceptions, no it wouldn't be legal. No prison. No pregnancy checks.
If you consider such an termination to be murder then why not implement such measures?

[AvalonXQ]

You might appreciate this: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/im_pro_life_and_i_support_planned_parenthood/singleton/?mobile.html

If this was the voice of the pro-life movement, I think we could make much more progress.

I... think I'm convinced.

I may be forced to oppose de-funding PP unless a viable alternative for providing low-income health services and birth control is included. I'll have to think about it some more.

[jj]

The endpoint is easily predicted, the human race winds up out of resources, in a dead end, stuck to the planet due to lack of energy to get off, with everyone in abject misery.

Misery, of course, being what promotes extremist religions like nothing else.

[myowninvention]

I... think I'm convinced.

I may be forced to oppose de-funding PP unless a viable alternative for providing low-income health services and birth control is included. I'll have to think about it some more.

Thank goodness for moderate pragmatism. I'm very glad you are giving this thought.

[Caper]

If you consider such an termination to be murder then why not implement such measures?

I don't think it would do to well in the public relations department.

[AvalonXQ]

Thank goodness for moderate pragmatism. I'm very glad you are giving this thought.

It's very simple -- I mean it when I say I'm pro-life. This is about prohibiting loss of life, not about "punishing" women or controlling others or any of that rot.
I want what ends abortion. If prohibition of abortion doesn't do that, there's no reason for me to support it.

Generally, though, I admit bristling a little bit at being described as a "moderate".

[Caper]

It's very simple -- I mean it when I say I'm pro-life. This is about prohibiting loss of life, not about "punishing" women or controlling others or any of that rot.
I want what ends abortion. If prohibition of abortion doesn't do that, there's no reason for me to support it.

Generally, though, I admit bristling a little bit at being described as a "moderate".

I have no real problem with that stance. I would say the same thing.

It's just with me. I see an fetus as human.... somewhere in the development (I don't know where that point would be). I feel that abortion causes real genuine human pain to many that go through it. Not large percentage wise, but probably a very large number.

I look at someone like Gianna Jessen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen) and it outrages me that what was done to her was allowed to happen. I don't care how rare it was. An otherwise healthy baby should never been subjected to what she was subjected too. I am assuming it was a normal pregnancy with no increased health risks. I have no care to demonize the mother as others like to try to place on me.

I don't neccessarily mind your prgmatic stance on the issue.

[MattusMaximus]

1) if she wanted to abort a 30 week old fetus that she didn't want? Without getting into exceptions, no it wouldn't be legal. No prison. No pregnancy checks.

So you want abortion after that time made illegal, yet you propose no enforcement mechanism for the law. So... how exactly does that decrease the rates of late-term abortion?

Hint: it doesn't. This is the point that so many pro-lifers just don't get: they think that by passing these laws or overturning Roe v. Wade the rate of abortions will magically go down. It won't.

In fact, unless some pretty draconian enforcement measures are put into place, the abortion rate will remain rather steady. But if the pro-lifers actually do get enforcement mechanisms into place, it will blow back on them in a serious way. Just imagine the blowback from the media showing footage of doctors, nurses, and pregnant women being arrested... that'll fly like a lead balloon :rolleyes:

This whole "overturn Roe v. Wade" nonsense is just a pipe dream. Want to lower the abortion rate, folks? Try focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies with science-based, comprehensive sex education and ready access to contraceptives.

Anything else is pissing into the wind. But at least it gives the pro-lifers something to moan and moralize about...

[bookitty]

I have no real problem with that stance. I would say the same thing.

It's just with me. I see an fetus as human.... somewhere in the development (I don't know where that point would be). I feel that abortion causes real genuine human pain to many that go through it. Not large percentage wise, but probably a very large number.

I look at someone like Gianna Jessen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen) and it outrages me that what was done to her was allowed to happen. I don't care how rare it was. An otherwise healthy baby should never been subjected to what she was subjected too. I am assuming it was a normal pregnancy with no increased health risks. I have no care to demonize the mother as others like to try to place on me.

I don't neccessarily mind your prgmatic stance on the issue.

It's always amusing when anti-choicers go on about ripping the poor baby to shreds and then bring up Gianna Jessen. She does have health problems but all evidence indicates that she is in one piece.

Not-so amusing, basing laws on the bizarre example of a single person.

[truethat]

It's always amusing when anti-choicers go on about ripping the poor baby to shreds and then bring up Gianna Jessen. She does have health problems but all evidence indicates that she is in one piece.

Not-so amusing, basing laws on the bizarre example of a single person.

Right it's only ok when you do it. Gianna Jessen and other survivors of abortion take a stand for the dead. She makes an excellent point about how people say this is a woman's rights issue, but who was there for her and her rights? There are other survivors of abortion out there who point out that they were taken from one wing to another wing in a matter of moments, suddenly an abortion was a baby. They grew up and resent being told that a second before they were born they were a glop of cells.

I can understand why some of them feel the way they do. They get a bit too Bible and Jesus and God for me, but I can respect them as TRUE VICTIMS not pretend ones.

[bookitty]

Right it's only ok when you do it. Gianna Jessen and other survivors of abortion take a stand for the dead. She makes an excellent point about how people say this is a woman's rights issue, but who was there for her and her rights? There are other survivors of abortion out there who point out that they were taken from one wing to another wing in a matter of moments, suddenly an abortion was a baby. They grew up and resent being told that a second before they were born they were a glop of cells.

I can understand why some of them feel the way they do. They get a bit too Bible and Jesus and God for me, but I can respect them as TRUE VICTIMS not pretend ones.

I know of only one other survivor of abortion who discusses it publicly. I can see where they might take it personally but I can't see where it is any more harmful than telling children that they were an unwanted "oops!"

I also fail to see how Gianna Jessen is a REAL VICTIM when there is no information on why her mother had a saline abortion at 30 weeks. We do know that she was 17 and that women under 21 are at higher risk for problematic pregnancy. Perhaps the doctor recommended it. We just don't know. In any case, Gianna Jessen lived and is making a decent living as someone who is worth more for simply being alive than for anything she has accomplished.

[truethat]

You're hysterical. The real victims you gloss over. So she who has cerebral palsy because of a botched saline abortion but lived and survived, 'meh' but those poor poor women who can't figure out how to use a condom. Those are the real victims.


LOL

Seriously thanks for the laughs bookitty, You never disappoint.

[bookitty]

You're hysterical. The real victims you gloss over. So she who has cerebral palsy because of a botched saline abortion but lived and survived, 'meh' but those poor poor women who can't figure out how to use a condom. Those are the real victims.


LOL

Seriously thanks for the laughs bookitty, You never disappoint.

Sorry, I don't remember referring to you (or anyone) as a victim simply because they didn't properly use a condom. Until technology catches up to the incredibly fecund human body, birth control failure is simply a fact.

[myowninvention]

It's very simple -- I mean it when I say I'm pro-life. This is about prohibiting loss of life, not about "punishing" women or controlling others or any of that rot.
I want what ends abortion. If prohibition of abortion doesn't do that, there's no reason for me to support it.

Generally, though, I admit bristling a little bit at being described as a "moderate".

Don't worry- it was the author of the article I was calling moderate.

I'm still glad you found it worth thinking on.

[Caper]

So you want abortion after that time made illegal, yet you propose no enforcement mechanism for the law. So... how exactly does that decrease the rates of late-term abortion?


Nothing was said about abortion providers. I would be all for punishing abortion providers that would provide that service.

In fact, unless some pretty draconian enforcement measures are put into place, the abortion rate will remain rather steady. But if the pro-lifers actually do get enforcement mechanisms into place, it will blow back on them in a serious way. Just imagine the blowback from the media showing footage of doctors, nurses, and pregnant women being arrested... that'll fly like a lead balloon :rolleyes:



Didn't I just mention I wouldn't punish women? And just how many doctors are going to perform such illegal acts?

I can think of one, who illegally provided abortion services for precisely what I am talking about.

He has been arrested for violating state law and charged with 8 counts of murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/house-horrors-alleged-abortion-clinic/#.TzUAjVYyF8E

Wow.... funny thing is, that amazing backlash you were talking about never happened..... go figure. I guess image of a doctor snipping the neck of an 7 month old fetus and severing its spinal cord trumped the image of that monster in handcuffs...... Again.... who'd have thought?

Really the only difference between what you support and what he did... was he in many cases let them come out first. He could have just as easily killed them inside the womb as outside.

[Caper]

It's always amusing when anti-choicers go on about ripping the poor baby to shreds and then bring up Gianna Jessen. She does have health problems but all evidence indicates that she is in one piece.


She's lucky. Many don't come out in one piece. My point in bringing her up is that the procedure that damaged her for life should never have been allowed to happen. And like you said, in most states and a lot of countries I got my wish.

Not-so amusing, basing laws on the bizarre example of a single person.



I wouldn't be. I would be basing them not only on her, but the many that didn't get to make it out of the ordeal alive.

[sgtbaker]

It's always amusing when anti-choicers go on about ripping the poor baby to shreds and then bring up Gianna Jessen. She does have health problems but all evidence indicates that she is in one piece.

Not-so amusing, basing laws on the bizarre example of a single person.

Besides, weren't a few of the pro choice examples dismissed because we mentioned the rare exception cases? Don't even answer it, just ignore it because it's rare and therefor, inconsequential.

[Mark6]

I... think I'm convinced.
Somebody on Internet changed his mind about something?? What is the world coming to!? :D

Seriously, I always respected AvalonxQ even when I did not agree with his positions, and am very happy to see what he wrote here.

[sgtbaker]

Somebody on Internet changed his mind about something?? What is the world coming to!? :D

Seriously, I always respected AvalonxQ even when I did not agree with his positions, and am very happy to see what he wrote here.

I agree and I've seen him/her do it on more than one occassion. It's a very respectable trait.

[catsmate1]

In fact, unless some pretty draconian enforcement measures are put into place, the abortion rate will remain rather steady. But if the pro-lifers actually do get enforcement mechanisms into place, it will blow back on them in a serious way. Just imagine the blowback from the media showing footage of doctors, nurses, and pregnant women being arrested... that'll fly like a lead balloon :rolleyes:
Yup. Very few opponents of legal abortion will go that far, in public at least.
Rather hypocritical of them; if they really believed that abortion was murder then why not go with such measures.

This whole "overturn Roe v. Wade" nonsense is just a pipe dream. Want to lower the abortion rate, folks? Try focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies with science-based, comprehensive sex education and ready access to contraceptives.

Anything else is pissing into the wind. But at least it gives the pro-lifers something to moan and moralize about...
Exactly I've seen damn all activity by opponents of abortion to:


provide proper, realistic, (i.e. not abstinence based) sex education
improve access to contraception and sexual health services
provide better adoption and childcare services

Instead they:


continually push, and lie about the effectiveness of, abstinence based sex education
obstruct access to contraception and lie about it's effectiveness and safety
oppose, and lie about, HPV vaccination
do damn all for actually born children

[Caper]

Yup. Very few opponents of legal abortion will go that far, in public at least.
Rather hypocritical of them; if they really believed that abortion was murder then why not go with such measures.


Why would I be a hypocrite? It's a pragmatic stance.

[Caper]

Besides, weren't a few of the pro choice examples dismissed because we mentioned the rare exception cases? Don't even answer it, just ignore it because it's rare and therefor, inconsequential.

Really? Because it's rare you ignore it? I suppose that's the best way to defend the indefensible.

[catsmate1]

Besides, weren't a few of the pro choice examples dismissed because we mentioned the rare exception cases? Don't even answer it, just ignore it because it's rare and therefor, inconsequential.
Yep truethat maintained that incest and rape cases were so few as to be unimportant amongst the entirety of abortions.

[catsmate1]

Why would I be a hypocrite? It's a pragmatic stance.
You claim to believe that induced abortion is murder and wish it to be criminalised but don't want to implement the measures to stop it because they'd be unpopular.

[sgtbaker]

Really? Because it's rare you ignore it? I suppose that's the best way to defend the indefensible.

Scroll back a few pages and see the response to the oh so rare examples of rape/incest and failed contraception cases. I was merely pointing out the irony that exceptional cases only seem to be a fitting argument for one side of this debate.

[truethat]

Actually she's not rare though. Her survival is rare. She herself represents 32 million people killed every year. I'm not using her as an example but I find the logic used in this thread astounding.

[bookitty]

Scroll back a few pages and see the response to the oh so rare examples of rape/incest and failed contraception cases. I was merely pointing out the irony that exceptional cases only seem to be a fitting argument for one side of this debate.

Including all this talk of third trimester abortion, which happens in 2 percent of cases but is now being used to illustrate all abortions.

[truethat]

I don't think trimester abortion, rape victims, incest victims etc should ever be brought up in the abortion discussion because they are such rare cases. On both sides a push happens of each side presenting the worst case scenario.

But bookitty also does the same thing by talking about poor women who can't afford condoms which you can get for free. Or how hard it is to be personally responsible for your sexual activity as an adult woman and never have unprotected sex.

It's always the "condom broke" or some excuse.

You totally want to ignore the numbers of repeat abortions or women who were not using any form of birth control at all.

Totally ignore it to post comments about Ron Pauls comments on rape victims. Seriously. You are the worst offender in this thread and you're posting this? More laughs.

[bookitty]

I don't think trimester abortion, rape victims, incest victims etc should ever be brought up in the abortion discussion because they are such rare cases. On both sides a push happens of each side presenting the worst case scenario.

But bookitty also does the same thing by talking about poor women who can't afford condoms which you can get for free. Or how hard it is to be personally responsible for your sexual activity as an adult woman and never have unprotected sex.

It's always the "condom broke" or some excuse.

You totally want to ignore the numbers of repeat abortions or women who were not using any form of birth control at all.

Totally ignore it to post comments about Ron Pauls comments on rape victims. Seriously. You are the worst offender in this thread and you're posting this? More laughs.


You still haven't proven that all women who have repeat abortions do so because they weren't using birth control. That is your opinion only. There is nothing in that report which links the two.

And, as I have said quite often, unwanted pregnancy happens for a huge variety of different reasons. Addressing those reasons, when applicable, can reduce rates of abortion. Call women "stupid" does nothing.

[sgtbaker]

Actually she's not rare though. Her survival is rare. She herself represents 32 million people killed every year. I'm not using her as an example but I find the logic used in this thread astounding.

That's not using logic thought, you are relying on emotional pleas again. Fetuses are not universally accepted as people and abortion is not universally accepted as "killing". If she is one if 66 a year, compared to the amount of abortions a year, she is rare. If pleading to the rare case is unacceptable, it must be unacceptable on both side.

[truethat]

You still haven't proven that all women who have repeat abortions do so because they weren't using birth control. That is your opinion only. There is nothing in that report which links the two.

And, as I have said quite often, unwanted pregnancy happens for a huge variety of different reasons. Addressing those reasons, when applicable, can reduce rates of abortion. Call women "stupid" does nothing.


I never said that all women. There ya go with your extremes again. I also don't think women are stupid. You seem to think they are too stupid to figure out how to use and get reliable birth control. Not me. So when I see they admit they weren't using birth control I realize that irresponsibility leads to almost half the abortions had. I expect women to be responsible.

[AvalonXQ]

Fetuses are not universally accepted as people and abortion is not universally accepted as "killing".

I think you meant to say "murder". There's no disagreement that abortion is killing; the only question is what it kills.

[sgtbaker]

I think you meant to say "murder". There's no disagreement that abortion is killing; the only question is what it kills.

I had a problem with the whole phrase killing people but you are correct

[sgtbaker]

I never said that all women. There ya go with your extremes again. I also don't think women are stupid. You seem to think they are too stupid to figure out how to use and get reliable birth control. Not me. So when I see they admit they weren't using birth control I realize that irresponsibility leads to almost half the abortions had. I expect women to be responsible.

You are putting words in people's mouths again. She never ever once said that women are too stupid to figure it out. We've all maintained that occasionally people don't have access to birth control. Occasionally people will opt to have unprotected sex forforcing any otherother mundane reason; forcing them to carry out a pregnancy denies a woman's right to autonomy. Your opinion (and I stress OPINION) on where life begins is trumped by a woman's right to choose. You can go on for the rest of your natural born life about who's responsible and who is not but you are alone in the need for putting titles on people, it's irrelevant to the issue.

[Caper]

You claim to believe that induced abortion is murder and wish it to be criminalised but don't want to implement the measures to stop it because they'd be unpopular.

Oh no, I would have no problem implementing such measures. I would throw someone like kermit gosnell in prison.

[truethat]

You are putting words in people's mouths again. She never ever once said that women are too stupid to figure it out. We've all maintained that occasionally people don't have access to birth control. Occasionally people will opt to have unprotected sex forforcing any otherother mundane reason; forcing them to carry out a pregnancy denies a woman's right to autonomy. Your opinion (and I stress OPINION) on where life begins is trumped by a woman's right to choose. You can go on for the rest of your natural born life about who's responsible and who is not but you are alone in the need for putting titles on people, it's irrelevant to the issue.

Occassionally?


Sorry if half of all abortions are done by people not using birth control it is NOT Occasionally.

Once again the logic in this thread astounds me.


Also you are the one putting words in my mouth. I've stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that I think abortion should be safe, legal and RARE.

Yawn.

[bookitty]

Oh no, I would have no problem implementing such measures. I would throw someone like kermit gosnell in prison.

You say that like what he was doing is currently legal. It's not.

[sgtbaker]

Occassionally?


Sorry if half of all abortions are done by people not using birth control it is NOT Occasionally.

Once again the logic in this thread astounds me.


Also you are the one putting words in my mouth. I've stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that I think abortion should be safe, legal and RARE.

Yawn.

What did I accuse you of saying that you are not saying? Your opinion is it should be rare and I am saying your opinion is trumped by the right to choose. You don't get to play the word game because it's all there to read.

No, I am saying occassionally people don't use birth control because they can't afford it, occassionally people don't use birth control because they simply choose not to, occassionally people actually have unprotected sex because they are trying to have a child but something has gone wrong, sometimes its health of the mother, sometimes it's health of the child, sometimes she finds out the father wants nothing to do with it the reasons go on and on. You just don't get to create two neat little catagories. What I find particularly astounding is how you claim to be so focused on logic that you can't see where yours fails.

[MattusMaximus]

Oh no, I would have no problem implementing such measures. I would throw someone like kermit gosnell in prison.

But the question is would you throw some doctor/nurse who performed an abortion which aborted a week-old embryo? If, as you seem to have said, that such an embryo is a full-fledged person, then to be consistent you must say "yes."

Otherwise, you are a hypocrite and you are going against your own ideology.

And I dare you and the other pro-lifers to attempt to seriously make the argument that doctors under such circumstances should be jailed. Better yet, to stay even more consistent with your previous arguments, you have to argue that the pregnant woman is also guilty of murder (at least complicit) and should likewise be jailed.

So which is it? Ideological consistency or blatant hypocrisy? You have put yourself into a position where you have no other choice.

[truethat]

What did I accuse you of saying that you are not saying? Your opinion is it should be rare and I am saying your opinion is trumped by the right to choose. You don't get to play the word game because it's all there to read.

No, I am saying occassionally people don't use birth control because they can't afford it, occassionally people don't use birth control because they simply choose not to, occassionally people actually have unprotected sex because they are trying to have a child but something has gone wrong, sometimes its health of the mother, sometimes it's health of the child, sometimes she finds out the father wants nothing to do with it the reasons go on and on. You just don't get to create two neat little catagories. What I find particularly astounding is how you claim to be so focused on logic that you can't see where yours fails.

If people did not "occasionally" do that then abortion would drop. And it is neat categories. If half of all abortions are had by people not using any birth control at the time, you can dump out the other situations and look at that. Women need to be more responsible. If they are abortion rates will drop.

You make is sound as if just one time a person forgot to use a condom and that accounts for half of all abortions. No, it's failure to use birth control properly.

How is my opinion that women should have the right to choose trumped by the fact that women have the right to choose.

Try again.

[bookitty]

If people did not "occasionally" do that then abortion would drop. And it is neat categories. If half of all abortions are had by people not using any birth control at the time, you can dump out the other situations and look at that. Women need to be more responsible. If they are abortion rates will drop.

You make is sound as if just one time a person forgot to use a condom and that accounts for half of all abortions. No, it's failure to use birth control properly.

How is my opinion that women should have the right to choose trumped by the fact that women have the right to choose.

Try again.

Telling people to "be responsible!!!" has historically been useless in decreasing the rate of abortion. Comprehensive sex-ed, free access to birth control, universal access to medical care, support for working mothers, and mandating that companies with a large amount of employees provide child care has proven more effective.

None of those things make individuals "more responsible" and yet countries that provide them still see a decrease in abortion.

[truethat]

Telling people to "be responsible!!!" has historically been useless in decreasing the rate of abortion. Comprehensive sex-ed, free access to birth control, universal access to medical care, support for working mothers, and mandating that companies with a large amount of employees provide child care has proven more effective.

None of those things make individuals "more responsible" and yet countries that provide them still see a decrease in abortion.

Oh yes they do. What are you nuts? Being able to have access to all that certainly does help a person be more responsible.

I'm talking here in the states where it already exists. You have been the one saying they can't afford condoms. And the ones who can't afford condoms need to have access to free condoms. But none of that is going to matter if we don't also strongly push that you must use the condoms and that you are an irresponsible person if you don't. Not a victim.

[sgtbaker]

If people did not "occasionally" do that then abortion would drop. And it is neat categories.

I am sorry, there is nothing more I can say to make you think it through. People are human, they make mistakes, they don't always look in the longterm. They sometimes think, "well that won't happen to me." You can carry on all you want, about what people "should" do. The fact is, they are not always going to listen.

If half of all abortions are had by people not using any birth control at the time, you can dump out the other situations and look at that. Women need to be more responsible. If they are abortion rates will drop.

You don't get to dump it just because it hurts your argument. That's not how logic works.

You make is sound as if just one time a person forgot to use a condom and that accounts for half of all abortions. No, it's failure to use birth control properly.

I did not say just one person, stop resorting to strawman.

How is my opinion that women should have the right to choose trumped by the fact that women have the right to choose.

Try again

Cute word game, though, but I will spell it out just incase you are having trouble understanding; you opinion on how rare abortion should be is trumped by a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

Quite honestly, you are looking desperate because all you've done is try to reword what I say to make it fit your argument. It's getting old and I am done. I will read what you have to say but probably won't be responding.

[bookitty]

Oh yes they do. What are you nuts? Being able to have access to all that certainly does help a person be more responsible.

I'm talking here in the states where it already exists. You have been the one saying they can't afford condoms. And the ones who can't afford condoms need to have access to free condoms. But none of that is going to matter if we don't also strongly push that you must use the condoms and that you are an irresponsible person if you don't. Not a victim.

It's tricky talking to you. If I point out that not everyone has access to condoms (The US does have a good sized rural population, btw) you say that I am calling them victims. If I suggest more comprehensive sex ed, you bring up victims. If I point out that no birth control is 100% effective, you reply "OH MY GAWD MOAR VICTIMS!!!!

Victims. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Complexity]

I am so sick and tired of these 'pro-lifers'.

They don't give a damn about life, embryos, fetuses, or babies - they only want to control and to impose their twisted life-denying 'morality' on the rest of us.

They are among the nastiest and most immoral people I've encountered.

[truethat]

It's tricky talking to you. If I point out that not everyone has access to condoms (The US does have a good sized rural population, btw) you say that I am calling them victims. If I suggest more comprehensive sex ed, you bring up victims. If I point out that no birth control is 100% effective, you reply "OH MY GAWD MOAR VICTIMS!!!!

Victims. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You keep pretending there are other excuses that don't relate to personal responsibility. That's why I'm using the word victim.

When I point out that free condoms are available you make an excuse. You have excuse after excuse after excuse for why women don't use birth control.

The truth is that there is really only one excuse, they aren't making it their personal responsibility not to have sex if they don't have birth control. If they don't have birth control they shouldn't have sex.

WOULD YOU? If you didn't have birth control and didn't want to get pregnant would you have sex or not?

So by making excuses for other women you are turning them into helpless victims of their own sexuality.

They aren't. And they need to be encouraged to be responsible.

[bookitty]

You keep pretending there are other excuses that don't relate to personal responsibility. That's why I'm using the word victim.

When I point out that free condoms are available you make an excuse. You have excuse after excuse after excuse for why women don't use birth control.

The truth is that there is really only one excuse, they aren't making it their personal responsibility not to have sex if they don't have birth control. If they don't have birth control they shouldn't have sex.

WOULD YOU? If you didn't have birth control and didn't want to get pregnant would you have sex or not?

So by making excuses for other women you are turning them into helpless victims of their own sexuality.

They aren't. And they need to be encouraged to be responsible.

This is my saturation point. I can't be bothered.

[catsmate1]

I am so sick and tired of these 'pro-lifers'.

They don't give a damn about life, embryos, fetuses, or babies - they only want to control and to impose their twisted life-denying 'morality' on the rest of us.

They are among the nastiest and most immoral people I've encountered.
The regularity with which "pro-life" activists resort to lying to support their views, even when these lies endanger lives, demonstrates this abundantly.

Lanfranchi and Brind, so often cited by anti-abortion loons like out own JB, are examples of this; no to hormonal birth control ("molotov cocktail of a group one carcinogen"1); no to condoms (they cause STIs2, lead to "cancer in the womb"3 and can't prevent HIV transmission4); no to abortion (causes breast cancer5); no to HPV vaccination (dangerous and doesn't prevent cancers6)

1 lie
2 lie
3 lie
4 lie
5 lie
6 lie

[Caper]

I am so sick and tired of these 'pro-lifers'.

They don't give a damn about life, embryos, fetuses, or babies - they only want to control and to impose their twisted life-denying 'morality' on the rest of us.

They are among the nastiest and most immoral people I've encountered.


An outright lie from someone who has nothing.

Even the ones I disagree with. They are largely the some of the kindest, most sincere people you would want to meet. I agree many are misguided, but it's a lie that they not care. Or you're just wrong.

[MattusMaximus]

Ahem... from post #557
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8012657&postcount=557)
But the question is would you throw some doctor/nurse who performed an abortion which aborted a week-old embryo? If, as you seem to have said, that such an embryo is a full-fledged person, then to be consistent you must say "yes."

Otherwise, you are a hypocrite and you are going against your own ideology.

And I dare you and the other pro-lifers to attempt to seriously make the argument that doctors under such circumstances should be jailed. Better yet, to stay even more consistent with your previous arguments, you have to argue that the pregnant woman is also guilty of murder (at least complicit) and should likewise be jailed.

So which is it? Ideological consistency or blatant hypocrisy? You have put yourself into a position where you have no other choice.

Methinks Caper might have taken a third option: Ignore the question :rolleyes:

[Caper]

But the question is would you throw some doctor/nurse who performed an abortion which aborted a week-old embryo?


No I wouldn't. If you read any of what I posted on this thread, you would not have asked such a stupid question.

If, as you seem to have said, that such an embryo is a full-fledged person, then to be consistent you must say "yes.


No. No I didn't say anything of the sort. But again, when you have nothing.... make something up. Good job.

And I dare you and the other pro-lifers to attempt to seriously make the argument that doctors under such circumstances should be jailed.


Why would I make an argument for something I don't believe should happen?


So which is it? Ideological consistency or blatant hypocrisy? You have put yourself into a position where you have no other choice.


Or.... or... you just decided to make up my position, which doesn't represent anything I have said.

Wow.... you really backed me into a corner here..... how ever shall I escape?

[MattusMaximus]

So Caper, a 7-month old fetus is a "person", but a week-old embryo isn't? Why the difference?

[Caper]

So Caper, a 7-month old fetus is a "person", but a week-old embryo isn't? Why the difference?

If you have to even ask the question. Then you are a fool.

[MattusMaximus]

If you have to even ask the question. Then you are a fool.

No, I would like to know your rationale. Please outline it. If you cannot even articulate your own rationale for being "pro-life", then perhaps you need to think about it a bit more.

[Caper]

No, I would like to know your rationale. Please outline it. If you cannot even articulate your own rationale for being "pro-life", then perhaps you need to think about it a bit more.

You would like to know my rationale as to why I would consider a 7th month old fetus a person and not a week old embryo?

What do you think the rationale would be? Why do you think most state laws treats them different?

Am I the one that really needs to think about it more?

[Silly Green Monkey]

I was a pro-lifer when I was growing up. I was an uninformed and lied to little bitch.

[MattusMaximus]

You would like to know my rationale as to why I would consider a 7th month old fetus a person and not a week old embryo?

Yes. That is why I asked.

What, in your mind, specifically about a 7 month-old fetus makes it more of a "person" than a week-old embryo? What are the criteria you apply to "personhood"?

What do you think the rationale would be? Why do you think most state laws treats them different?

What is this, the mirror game? I asked you. I already know what I believe, I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

Am I the one that really needs to think about it more?

Yes, apparently, because you are still unable to articulate a response to a rather simple question.

[Caper]

Yes. That is why I asked.
What, in your mind, specifically about a 7 month-old fetus makes it more of a "person" than a week-old embryo? What are the criteria you apply to "personhood"?



If I'm arguing a 9/11 truther and they ask what proof is there a plane hit the twin towers. I don't answer the question. And I shouldn't answer a question this stupid either. If you can't see the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 7 day old embryo..... a difference that would make one much more worthy of protection (or more human if you want to say it like that)...... then you are a fool.

[catsmate1]

I was a pro-lifer when I was growing up. I was an uninformed and lied to little bitch.
So was I until 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland);t he lies and misinformation spewed by the "pro-life" movement changed that.

[Aepervius]

If you have to even ask the question. Then you are a fool.

No , the question is the REASON of the whole disaster : because it is a question to whom nobody has answer , not even scientific. That is the reason there is an abortion debate to begin with ! Nobody can place the point at which a fetus , heck a single cell-egg, become a full fledged persons. As usual when tehre is no factual rational answer, everybody throw back to their own cultural background, notion of morality, and freedom.

If there was actually a logic, rational, scientific answer, the debate would have been long over.

[Caper]

No , the question is the REASON of the whole disaster : because it is a question to whom nobody has answer , not even scientific.

Really. You don't have an answer? You can't come up with a difference between a week old embryo and a 7 month old fetus?

[sgtbaker]

I was a pro-lifer when I was growing up. I was an uninformed and lied to little bitch.

I know I said that I was backing out of this thread but I just had to come back and say an emphatic, "me too." I was on the fence until I was about 16 and watched an hour long pro life logical fallacy that had me a staunch pro lifer until I hit my mid to late 20's and realized that it was all appeal to emotion.

[Complexity]

An outright lie from someone who has nothing.

Even the ones I disagree with. They are largely the some of the kindest, most sincere people you would want to meet. I agree many are misguided, but it's a lie that they not care. Or you're just wrong.


Nonsense.

Your views are monsterous.

[Caper]

Nonsense.

Your views are monsterous.

Yes, monstrous..... I believe a developed fetus has an inherent right to live. A view most states agree with. You are one weird dude......

[MattusMaximus]

If I'm arguing a 9/11 truther and they ask what proof is there a plane hit the twin towers. I don't answer the question. And I shouldn't answer a question this stupid either. If you can't see the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 7 day old embryo..... a difference that would make one much more worthy of protection (or more human if you want to say it like that)...... then you are a fool.

What difference?! What are the criteria you use to make that distinction? And, on a related note, if you think it is okay to abort a week-old embryo, but not a 7 month-old fetus, where is the dividing line? At what point do you flip from "abortion is okay" to "abortion is murder"?

Like I said, I already know what I believe; I'm just trying to figure out what you believe. And your responses so far haven't provided any clarification.

You could try actually addressing the question, or you could keep on expressing your mental masturbation here for all to see.

[Caper]

What difference?! What are the criteria you use to make that distinction? And, on a related note, if you think it is okay to abort a week-old embryo, but not a 7 month-old fetus, where is the dividing line? At what point do you flip from "abortion is okay" to "abortion is murder"?


Have you been following the thread? I think I've talked about it quite a bit in other posts. But it's a big thread. That's a better series of questions.

First I never said abortion was murder at any point. Murder has a precise legal definition.

The answer to the question of where I think the dividing line should be..... I don't know. That's my answer. Lets say a fetus who is 97% (an absurd hypothetical) out the birth canal at 9 months. In my mind they absolutely should be protected. Lets say now a 1 week old embryo. No I don't think they deserve that same protection. That leaves a lot of space in between. At about 20 weeks, that's when it gets real murky for me. If you would want an arbitrary cut offline..... say 19 weeks. I read a fetus in development feels pain at around 20 weeks. For me that's a deal breaker. That means a a lot in forming my opinion. But no there is no magical switch that comes on where it goes from right to wrong.

You could try actually addressing the question, or you could keep on expressing your mental masturbation here for all to see.


It was only in response to yours. These pathetic attempts with the "I gottcha moments".... deciding to make up my position in spots where you didn't know ..... were getting a little tiresome. There is not going to be some magical point of logic you are going to call me on. What ever opinion a person has in regards to the issue can be made pretty air tight logically. At some point there is just plain disagreement.

[Mark6]

What difference?! What are the criteria you use to make that distinction? And, on a related note, if you think it is okay to abort a week-old embryo, but not a 7 month-old fetus, where is the dividing line?
One has a functional brain. The other does not.

I would put dividing line when neocortex activity begins. Although I am not sure there is (yet) a way to detect it in the womb.

[bookitty]

Anatomy of an unsafe abortion (http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/)

On the gurney lay a young woman the color of white marble. The red pool between her legs, ominously free of clots, offered a silent explanation.

“She arrived a few minutes ago. Not even a note.” My resident was breathless with anger, adrenaline, and panic.

I had an idea who she went to. The same one the others did. The same one many more would visit. A doctor, but considering what I had seen he could’t have any formal gynecology training.

[catsmate1]

Anatomy of an unsafe abortion (http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/)
I saw that on Pharyngula and was going to post it. That's the world the "pro-life" activists are creating, though if they had their way the woman would probably face prosecution if she survived.
:mad: